Why Believe?

[jasphair]

Greetings all,

I’ve been a “Christian” for quite some time, but only recently, have begun really trying to make sense of my faith. I’m also going through RCIA, hoping to gain a better understanding of the Catholic Church.

In researching different viewpoints on religion and whatnot, I’ve come across something rather troubling. If I’m not a religious person, then I don’t believe in the concept of sin, that is, breaking laws set forth by A god. If you cannot believe in sin, then you cannot possibly believe in the teachings that Jesus came to save man, because after all, we need not need saving, let alone from a divine creator.

I was doing a little roleplay with my RCIA director, trying to get a better idea of why a person should choose to believe, let alone believe in Christianity. It went something like this:

Me: Why should I believe in Jesus Christ?
D: Because He came to save the world from sin.
Me: What is sin? As an agnostic, I don’t understand the concept…
D: Well, at the end of time, you’ll be judged. You’ll want to go to heaven with your friends, right?
Me: That’s assuming there is a heaven and a hell. How do we know?
D: Because Jesus says so.
Me: Why should I believe Jesus was more than a man, and thus, privy to this information? How can I believe His purpose, if I don’t believe we are in need of saving?
D: …

What do you think? I’m not trying to list reasons to not believe, but rather, trying to find some reasons TO believe! In my mind, Christianity is nothing more than a theory of our origin and purpose, albeit a widely popular one, and one that I’m siding with, out of popularity, not so much out of believe. Unfortunatley, I’ve been told this defeats the purpose, however, and God will tell me “depart from me, I do not know you”, since I was merely “tagging along” this whole time. So, having complete confidence in Christ and the church is of upmost priority at this point. I can’t just walk the walk, and talk the talk, but not really believe in any of it…

 

[rep140]

I think that it would be a good idea to look at the gospels, especially mark, to learn who Jesus was and to know how His disciples related to Him. For most of Mark the disciples are as skeptical as you are now. When Jesus was arrested the disciples were scandalized by Jesus, after all wasn’t he the messiah? After the arrest the disciples ran and hid for fear that the Romans might come for them next.

Then something happened that transformed the disciples into evangelists who would even die rather than deny Christ. In following Christ there was nothing in it for them on this earth. So, something happened. Christians believe this to be the Resurrection.

 

[Katholish]

Generally, I think it is accepted that there are two main avenues, or proofs of Christ’s divinity. (Clearly if you can conclude that he is God, you can conclude that He is telling the truth).

Prophesy: In some ways I honestly think this is the weaker of the two, but the Early Church Fathers certainly seemed to think it was the strongest, and it certainly cannot be ignored. The fact is that the Old Testament Prophets said that Christ would come and gave a great number of details about his life and mission, details which people at the time had difficulty understanding and certainly found it difficult that all of the details could be true of the same person (like that one could be both King and suffering servant). Christ’s life perfectly fullfils 100’s of years worth of prophesy in an astounding manner.

Miracles: Christ healed the sick, was master of the forces of nature, multipied matter, raised people from the dead, and by his own power raised himself from the dead. Christ himself claimed to be God, (The claims to miracles and claiming to be divine are all historically verifiable) and we are faced with three possibilities:

1 He was who He said he was
2 He was lying
3 He was crazy, actually thinking he was God when he was not.

The last two simply do not fit.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Greetings all,

I’ve been a “Christian” for quite some time, but only recently, have begun really trying to make sense of my faith. I’m also going through RCIA, hoping to gain a better understanding of the Catholic Church.

This seems to clash with the rest of your post

… trying to find some reasons TO believe! In my mind, Christianity is nothing more than a theory of our origin and purpose, albeit a widely popular one, and one that I’m siding with, out of popularity, not so much out of believe. Unfortunatley, I’ve been told this defeats the purpose, however, and God will tell me “depart from me, I do not know you”, since I was merely “tagging along” this whole time. So, having complete confidence in Christ and the church is of upmost priority at this point. I can’t just walk the walk, and talk the talk, but not really believe in any of it…

So are you agnostic or atheist?

Here is my advice: Set religion aside and explain the existence of a conscious and the evolution of man, then (and only then) compare the two.

 

[OchsFam]

This is not a reason to remain Christian, but a reason to start believing. As any journey, you must have a starting point and I think this is as good as any for an agnostic or atheist.

Let us assume there is no God or at least no judgment due to a poly-theistic religion that believes in a single end (Nirvana, general afterlife, etc.). If there is no God or differing judgment, being Christian is not going to hurt you. You would die and like everyone else, it would be the end. There is a lot of things pointing against this concept, but that will require research and again, this is just a beginning. The point is, if this is the ultimate truth, you lose nothing by believing in God.

Let us now assume there is a God or at least a judgment. If you are agnostic or atheist, you will be condemned to eternal hellfire and punishment. If you believe in this God and follow the rules, you will be saved. This will require some thought and study to discern truth in this category, but you are well on your way to doing this. The point is, there is much to lose in not following the truth regarding this judgment.

While I know the truth and feel that ultimately, through study, prayer, and logical contemplation, all will eventually come to this same conclusion, you must admit that there is no reason to NOT be Christian. If you don’t believe in judgment, then it doesn’t matter. If you do believe in judgment, then you should really start listening to us. In the end, your eternal life depends on your decisions of this life. You had better make a better decision than there is no eternal life because if you are wrong, you will have Hell to pay.

God Bless.

 

[jasphair]

This seems to clash with the rest of your post So are you agnostic or atheist?

Here is my advice: Set religion aside and explain the existence of a conscious and the evolution of man, then (and only then) compare the two.

I’ve always been, at the very least, agnostic. I’ve never not believed in the idea that we were created by something, or someone. I believe evolution is something that may occur, however, I believe something had to have allowed evolution to exist, and define the rules in which it operates. I also believe our bodies, and those of other mammals, are fare too complex and designed too specificially to have been a product of evolution or just chance. I also believe the world, being complex and unique (at least in our galaxy) was by design, to contain us, we didn’t just find ourselves here by chance.

Beyond that… I’m trying to figure it out. Why were we created? What is our purpose? Are we God’s pets? I think it’s easy to look at us, and the world around us, the same way we look into our aquarium or hamster cage. We have all that we need, we’re taken care of, we experience emotions, we age, and ultimately, death occurs. It feels like a controlled environment. We have someone watching over us, but at the same time, allowing us to act freely without our environment.

As for whom our creator is… I view Christianity as just a theory, and as I said, one that I’m inclined to side with, though my reasoning for doing so is more so out of feeling, not out of belief. That is, I feel it’d be wiser to pursue Christianity, as opposed to say, nothing, or an alternate belief, just based on its popularity. I don’t believe other religions (or ideas, theories, we’ll call them) are necessarily wrong, because up until now, we still cannot prove the existence of whom we call, the messiah, as defined by scriptures. The evidence, though great in detail and conveniently packaged within The Bible, doesn’t seem to exist much in secular society, historical books of the period, etc. In my pursuits of these kinds of texts, I’ve been told that writings back then were sparse, and that Jesus, being viewed as a criminal by the Romans, was no different than other criminals of the time, thus, no special attention was given to his trials, execution, etc, by Roman scribes.

 

[jasphair]

Generally, I think it is accepted that there are two main avenues, or proofs of Christ’s divinity. (Clearly if you can conclude that he is God, you can conclude that He is telling the truth).

Prophesy: In some ways I honestly think this is the weaker of the two, but the Early Church Fathers certainly seemed to think it was the strongest, and it certainly cannot be ignored. The fact is that the Old Testament Prophets said that Christ would come and gave a great number of details about his life and mission, details which people at the time had difficulty understanding and certainly found it difficult that all of the details could be true of the same person (like that one could be both King and suffering servant). Christ’s life perfectly fullfils 100’s of years worth of prophesy in an astounding manner.

Miracles: Christ healed the sick, was master of the forces of nature, multipied matter, raised people from the dead, and by his own power raised himself from the dead. Christ himself claimed to be God, (The claims to miracles and claiming to be divine are all historically verifiable) and we are faced with three possibilities:

1 He was who He said he was
2 He was lying
3 He was crazy, actually thinking he was God when he was not.

The last two simply do not fit.

Hi Katholish,

You have great arguments, many of which I’ve heard of before. The problem with this, however, is the ‘facts’ being presented cannot be deemed factual, due to their existence in The Bible. A question I ask is - why believe The Bible, or specifically, The New Testament? To me, it is a collection of biased literature from the period, written by those who supposedly met Christ, witnessed these things, etc. In other words, The New Testament is written by fans of Jesus, for fans of Jesus. A work such as this, could be produced elsewhere. If I tell a number of my friends to write a book about me after my death, telling of how I did miracles and whatnot (whether I did or not isn’t questioned), and call it the Book of Jasphair, many years later, society might accept that book as complete truth, because it was written by people who knew me. The fact of the matter is, the things they wrote about me, may have only been partial truths, or perhaps, no truth at all… does this make sense?

I asked my RCIA director for historical documents of the period, but he said they do not exist. He also told me to not dismiss the Bible as not being historical. Unfortunately, I don’t see how one cannot, especially if, perhaps, they are to dismiss another book, such as The Book of Mormon, which somewhat deviates (as I understand) from some of the teachings of The Bible. What makes one “holy book” more credible than another? What about the Qur’an? What makes that book less credible than The Bible? What makes The Bible more credible? Was the Qur’an written by Mohammad or people close to him? Do they not speak of miracles and his relationship to the divine?

Why believe The Bible?

 

[imkingdad]

I think your are being a tad disingenuous. You know what sin is, you have that concept already within you and have for some time. ( since birth more than likely)

All cultures know what is inherently right & wrong. a Natural Law written within them.
tell me that someone just walking up to you & taking & beating their child for no reason is amoral. you can’t and be honest. if you feel rage at that act what about others?
why do you feel enraged about that at all. how about a rape scenario for your mom or sis?

If you wish to play with this little concept it will lead you to anarchy & survival of the fittest.
where any act is licit as long as you have the power to back it up. do you really want to go there? do you want to put your family though that? That is why there is a law inscribed upon your heart & that has led you here.

As for Believing, You Have FREE WILL! Do with it as you wish. But don’t complain when others do so too - often to your detriment.

In reality, God made us to be Social, to live together & to assist each other. That requires a degree of mutually acceptable norms that all must agree & adhere to. Perhaps as your RCIA class gets a little more into the CCC you’ll understand better.

Good Luck, with that current attitude you’ll be needing it… Or you can change that attitude & try trust & faith. You already do it everyday. when you drive for example. you trust that others will obey the traffic laws & you have faith that the mechanic actually did fix those brakes on that other guys car that you have no control over.

regards

 

[Katholish]

jasphair,

Even assuming the Bible not to be from God and purely like any other books written in history, it has immense merit as a historical document. All histories are biased to some extent, but that doesn’t mean they do not contain historical information.

You cannot logically begin with the notion that the Bible is inspired, but you examine the evidence and conclude that the Bible is historical in many respects. From the historical evidence you conclude to Christ’s divinity and the inspiration of Scripture.

So, is the Bible historical? Let’s just look at the Gospels. We know that they were written in the 1st Century AD and most scholars will agree that they were written by the authors we traditionally attribute them to, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some of these men were direct witnesses to the life of Christ, and some like Luke collected eye-witness accounts. Nothing they say is historically contradicted by anyother known historical source of the time, but many things they say are corroberated by non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.

We know that there was a named named Jesus who preached in Galilee and Judea during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and who was executed by the Roman authorities, and that the people at the time claimed that he performed many miracles. This is about all we can get without using Christian historians. The Gospel accounts provide remarkable historical detail which there is no reason to question (for instance that Christ was handed over to King Herod before being sentenced by Pilate, or that he was arrested by the Jewish authorities and tried before being turned over to secular authorities). Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah/The Christ/God. While, because it is a biased source you could not take the Gospel’s assertion of the truth of this claim, you can at least assume the claim was made.

Now, why accept the Bible as history but not other “holy” books like the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Quite simply, they were not eye-witness accounts. They were written centuries after the events they are supposed to describe and do not even claim to know the information by natural means (i.e. they depend upon the claim that an angel revealed it). The Bible makes no such claim except in cases such as the Book of Revelation, and I am not suggesting that you rely upon that as a historical source.

 

[crazzeto]

Well I guess I might as well post the one fact of Christianity I find it nearly impossible to get past. Even granting the possiblity that maybe the Apostles tried inventing up this Jesus of Nasereth dude in a vien attempt to gain power. Now i’m not saying what I beleive, I’m just saying that such a thought might well occur to an Athiest or Agnostic. What I have in mind is a powerful argument not just for God, but Christ Jesus as God the Son.

Consider St. Paul. Now it’s possible that an Athiest/Agnostic knows the story, these days even more probable that they just have no clue.

The person we now call St Paul was originally Saul. This Saul guy was one bad guy as far as early (very early) Christians were concerned. His mission in life became to murder every christian he came in contact with, to destroy the Church. He had a strong conviction that early Christians were commiting Aposticy against what he felt at the time, was the one true religion (Judaism). Because of this conviction he felt fully justified in is act, and more over he was lauded by the Temple Priests and Pharasies (of which he was counted) which in terms of Social Standing and even economics was quite profitable.

Then one day, for some “mysterious” reason on his way to go kill him some more Christians he converts to Christianity. While he was actually getting pretty close to the city. What is more likely? God called on Saul, renaming him Paul who would become the brick layer of the Church? Or Saul just decided on his own “You know what, killing Christians and all kinds of personal gain is so yesterday. Today is all about being persecuted, stoned and killed for your beliefs”.